V. I. Lenin

Third Congress Of The Communist International[1]

June 22-July 12, 1921

Written:12 June, 1921First Published:First published in full as
      a pamphlet,Tezisy doklada o taktike R.K.P. na III kongresse
	Kommunisticheskogo Internatsionala (Theses for a Report of the
	Tactics of the R.C.P. at the Third Congress of the Communist
	International)in 1921; the speeches and the report in
      the book,Tezisy doklada o taktike R.K.P. na III kongresse
	Kommunisticheskogo Internatsionala. Stenograficheski
	otchot(Theses for a Report of the Tactics of the
      R.C.P. at the Third Congress of the Communist International,
      Verbatim Report) Petrograd, 1922; TheTezisyare
      published according to the manuscript; the speech on the Italian
      question, the speech in defence of the tactics of the Communist
      International, and the report on the tactics of the R.C. P.,
      according to the text of the book.Source:Lenin’sCollected Works, 1st English Edition, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1965,Volume 32, pages 451-498Translated:Yuri SdobnikovTranscription\HTML Markup:David Walters&R. CymbalaCopyleft:V. I. Lenin Internet Archive (www.marx.org) 2002. Permission is granted to copy and/or distribute this document under the terms of theGNU Free Documentation License

1 Theses For A Report On The Tactics Of The R.C.P.

1. The International Position Of The R.S.F.S.R.

The international position of the R.S.F.S.R. at present is
      distinguished by a certain equilibrium, which, although
      extremely unstable, has nevertheless given rise to a peculiar
      state of affairs in world politics.

This peculiarity is the following. On the one hand, the
      international bourgeoisie is filled with furious hatred of, and
      hostility towards, Soviet Russia, and is prepared at any moment
      to fling itself upon her in order to strangle her. On the other
      hand, all attempts at military intervention, which have cost the
      international bourgeoisie hundreds of millions of francs, ended
      in complete failure, in spite of the fact that the Soviet power
      was then weaker than it is now and that the Russian landowners
      and capitalists had whole armies on the territory of the
      R.S.F.S.R. Opposition to the war against Soviet Russia has grown
      considerably in all capitalist countries, adding fuel to the
      revolutionary movement of the proletariat and extending to very
      wide sections of the petty-bourgeois democrats. The conflict of
      interests between the various imperialist countries has become
      acute, and is growing more acute every day. The revolutionary
      movement among the hundreds of millions of oppressed peoples of
      the East is growing with remarkable vigour. The result of all
      these conditions is that international imperialism has proved
      unable to strangle Soviet Russia, although it is far stronger,
      and has been obliged for the time being to grant her
      recognition, or semi-recognition, and to conclude trade
      agreements with her.

The result is a state of equilibrium which, although highly
      unstable and precarious, enables the Socialist Republic to
      exist—not for long, of course—within the capitalist
      encirclement.

2. The International Alignment Of Class Forces

This state of affairs has given rise to the following
      international alignment of class forces.

The international bourgeoisie, deprived of the opportunity of
      waging open war against Soviet Russia, is waiting and watching
      for the moment when circumstances will permit it to resume the
      war.

The proletariat in all the advanced capitalist countries has
      already formed its vanguard, the Communist Parties, which are
      growing, making steady progress towards winning the majority of
      the proletariat in each country, and destroying the influence of
      the old trade union bureaucrats and of the upper stratum of the
      working class of America and Europe, which has been corrupted by
      imperialist privileges.

The petty-bourgeois democrats in the capitalist countries, whose
      foremost sections are represented by the Second and
      Two-and-a-Half Internationals, serve today as the mainstay of
      capitalism, since they retain an influence over the majority, or
      a considerable section, of the industrial and commercial workers
      and office employees who are afraid that if revolution breaks
      out they will lose the relative petty-bourgeois prosperity
      created by the privileges of imperialism. But the growing
      economic crisis is worsening the condition of broad sections of
      the people everywhere, and this, with the looming inevitability
      of new imperialist wars if capitalism is preserved, is steadily
      weakening this mainstay.

The masses of the working people in the colonial and semi
      colonial countries, who constitute the overwhelming majority of
      the population of the globe, were roused to political life at
      the turn of the twentieth century, particularly by the
      revolutions in Russia, Turkey, Persia and China. The imperialist
      war of 1914-18 and the Soviet power in Russia are completing the
      process of converting these masses into an active factor in
      world politics and in the revolutionary destruction of
      imperialism, although the educated philistines of Europe and
      America, including the leaders of the Second and Two-and-a-Half
      Internationals, stubbornly refuse to see this. British India is
      at the head of these countries, and there revolution is maturing
      in proportion, on the one hand, to the growth of the industrial
      and railway proletariat, and, on the other, to the increase in
      the brutal terrorism of the British,  who with ever greater
      frequency resort to massacres (Amritsar),[2]public
      floggings, etc.

3. The Alignment Of Class Forces In Russia

The internal political situation in Soviet Russia is determined
      by the fact that here, for the first time in history, there have
      been, for a number of years, only two classes—the
      proletariat, trained for decades by a very young, but modern,
      large-scale machine industry, and the small peasantry, who
      constitute the overwhelming majority of the population.

In Russia, the big landowners and capitalists have not vanished,
      but they have been subjected to total expropriation and crushed
      politically as a class, whose remnants are hiding out among
      Soviet government employees. They have preserved their class
      organisation abroad, as émigrés, numbering probably
      from 1,500,000 to 2,000,000 people, with over 50 daily
      newspapers of all bourgeois and “socialist” (i.e.,
      petty-bourgeois) parties, the remnants of an army, and numerous
      connections with the international bourgeoisie. These
      émigrés are striving, with might and main, to destroy
      the Soviet power and restore capitalism in Russia.

4. The Proletariat And The Peasantry In Russia

This being the internal situation in Russia, the main task now
      confronting her proletariat, as the ruling class, is properly to
      determine and carry out the measures that are necessary to lead
      the peasantry, establish a firm alliance with them and achieve
      the transition, in a series of gradual stages, to large-scale,
      socialised, mechanised agriculture. This is a particularly
      difficult task in Russia, both because of her backwardness, and
      her extreme state of ruin as a 

      result of seven years of imperialist and civil war. But apart
      from these specific circumstances, this is one of the most
      difficult tasks of socialist construction that will confront all
      capitalist countries, with, perhaps, the sole exception of
      Britain. However, even in regard to Britain it must not be
      forgotten that, while the small tenant farmers there constitute
      only a very small class, the percentage of workers and office
      employees who enjoy a petty-bourgeois standard of living is
      exceptionally high, due to the actual enslavement of hundreds of
      millions of people in Britain’s colonial possessions.

Hence, from the standpoint of development of the world
      proletarian revolution as a single process, the epoch Russia is
      passing through is significant as a practical test and a
      verification of the policy of a proletariat in power towards the
      mass of the petty bourgeoisie.

5. The Military Alliance Between The ProletariatAnd The Peasantry In The R.S.F.S.R.

The basis for proper relations between the proletariat and the
      peasantry in Soviet Russia was created in the period of 1917-21
      when the invasion of the capitalists and landowners, supported
      by the whole world bourgeoisie and all the petty-bourgeois
      democratic parties (Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks),
      caused the proletariat and the peasantry to form, sign and seal
      a military alliance to defend the Soviet power. Civil war is the
      most intense form of class struggle, but the more intense it is,
      the more rapidly its flames consume all petty-bourgeois
      illusions and prejudices, and the more clearly experience proves
      even to the most backward strata of the peasantry that only the
      dictatorship of the proletariat can save it, and that the
      Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks are in fact merely the
      servants of the landowners and capitalists.

But while the military alliance between the proletariat and the
      peasantry was—and had perforce to be—the primary
      form of their firm alliance, it could not have been maintained
      even for a few weeks without an economic alliance between the
      two classes. The peasants received from the workers’ state
      all the land and were given protection against the landowners
      and the kulaks; the workers have been receiving from the
      peasants loans of food supplies until large-scale industry is
      restored.

6. The Transition To Proper Economic RelationsBetween The Proletariat And The Peasantry

The alliance between the small peasants and the proletariat can
      become a correct and stable one from the socialist standpoint
      only when the complete restoration of transport and large-scale
      industry enables the proletariat to give the peasants, in
      exchange for food, all the goods they need for their own use and
      for the improvement of their farms. With the country in ruins,
      this could not possibly be achieved at once. The surplus
      appropriation system was the best measure available to the
      insufficiently organised state to maintain itself in the
      incredibly arduous war against the landowners. The crop failure
      and the fodder shortage in 1920 particularly increased the
      hardships of the peasantry, already severe enough, and made the
      immediate transition to the tax in kind imperative.

The moderate tax in kind will bring about a big improvement in
      the condition of the peasantry at once, and will at the same
      time stimulate them to enlarge crop areas and improve farming
      methods.

The tax in kind signifies a transition from the requisition of
      all the peasants’ surplus grain to regular socialist
      exchange of products between industry and agriculture.

7. The Conditions Under WhichThe Soviet Government Can
         Permit Capitalism And Concessions, And The Significance
         Thereof

Naturally, the tax in kind means freedom for the peasant to
      dispose of his after-tax surplus at his own discretion. Since
      the state cannot provide the peasant with goods from socialist
      factories in exchange for all his surplus, freedom to trade with
      this surplus necessarily means freedom for the development of
      capitalism.

Within the limits indicated, however, this is not at all
      dangerous for socialism as long as transport and large-scale
      industry remain in the hands of the proletariat. On the
      contrary, the development of capitalism, controlled and
      regulated by the proletarian state (i.e., “state”
      capitalism inthissense of the term), is advantageous
      and necessary in an extremely devastated and backward
      small-peasant country (within certain limits, of course),
      inasmuch as it is capable of hastening theimmediaterevival of peasant farming. This applies still more to
      concessions: without denationalising anything, the
      workers’ state leases certain mines, forest tracts,
      oilfields, and so forth, to foreign capitalists in order to
      obtain from them extra equipment and machinery that will enable
      us to accelerate the restoration of Soviet large-scale
      industry.

The payment made to the concessionaires in the form of a share
      of the highly valuable products obtained is undoubtedly tribute,
      which the workers’ state pays to the world bourgeoisie;
      without in any way glossing this over, we must clearly realise
      that we stand to gain by paying this tribute, so long as it
      accelerates the restoration of our large-scale industry and
      substantially improves the condition of the workers and
      peasants.

8. The Success Of Our Food Policy

The food policy pursued by Soviet Russia in 1917-21 was
      undoubtedly very crude and imperfect, and gave rise to many
      abuses. A number of mistakes were made in its
      implementation. But as a whole, it was the only possible policy
      under the conditions prevailing at the time. And it did fulfil
      its historic mission: it saved the proletarian dictatorship in a
      ruined and backward country. There can be no doubt that it has
      gradually improved. In the first year that we had full power
      (August 1, 1918 to August 1, 1919) the state collected 110
      millionpoodsof grain; in the second year it collected
      220 millionpoods, and in the third year—over 285
      millionpoods.

Now, having acquired practical experience, we have set out, and
      expect, to collect 400 millionpoods(the tax in kind
      is expected to bring in 240 millionpoods). Only when
      it is actually in possession of an adequate stock of food will
      the workers’ state be able to stand firmly on its own feet
      economically, secure the, steady, if slow, restoration of
      large-scale industry, and create a proper financial system.

9. The Material Basis Of Socialism And The PlanFor The Electrification Of Russia

A large-scale machine industry capable of reorganising
      agriculture is the only material basis that is possible for
      socialism. But we cannot confine ourselves to this general
      thesis. It must be made more concrete. Large-scale industry
      based on the latest achievements of technology and capable of
      reorganising agriculture implies the electrification of the
      whole country. We had to undertake the scientific work of
      drawing up such a plan for the electrification of the
      R.S.F.S.R. and we have accomplished it. With the co-operation of
      over two hundred of the best scientists, engineers and
      agronomists in Russia, this work has now been completed; it was
      published in a large volume and, as a whole, endorsed by the
      Eighth All-Russia Congress of Soviets in December
      1920. Arrangements have now been made to convene an all-Russia
      congress of electrical engineers in August 1921 to examine this
      plan in detail, before it is given final government
      endorsement. The execution of the first part of the
      electrification scheme is estimated to take ten years, and will
      require about 370 million man-days.

In 1918, we had eight newly erected power stations (with a total
      capacity of 4,757 kw); in 1919, the figure rose to 36 (total
      capacity of 1,648 kw), and in 1920, it rose to 100 (total
      capacity of 8,699 kw).

Modest as this beginning is for our vast country, a start has
      been made, work has begun and is making steady progress. After
      the imperialist war, after a million prisoners of war in Germany
      had become familiar with modern up-to-date technique, after the
      stern but hardening experience of three years of civil war, the
      Russian peasant is a different man. With every passing month he
      sees more clearly and more vividly that only the guidance given
      by the proletariat is capable of leading the mass of small
      farmers out of capitalist slavery to socialism.

10. The Role Of “Pure Democracy”,The Second 
      And Two-And-A-Half Internationals,The Socialist-Revolutionaries And The Mensheviks AsThe
      Allies Of Capital

The dictatorship of the proletariat does not signify a
      cessation of the class struggle, but its continuation in a
      new form and with new weapons. This dictatorship is
      essential as long as classes exist, as long as the
      bourgeoisie, overthrown in one country, intensifies tenfold
      its attacks on socialism on an international scale. In the
      transition period, the small farmer class is bound to
      experience certain vacillations. The difficulties of
	  transition, and the influence of the bourgeoisie, inevitably
      cause the mood of this mass to change from time to
      time. Upon the proletariat, enfeebled and to a certain
      extent declassed by the destruction of the large-scale
      machine industry, which is its vital foundation, devolves
      the very difficult but paramount historic task of holding
      out in spite of these vacillations, and of carrying to
      victory its cause of emancipating labour from the yoke of
      capital.

The policy pursued-by the petty-bourgeois democratic
      parties, i.e., the parties affiliated to the Second and
	  Two-and-a-Half Internationals, represented in Russia by the
	  S.R. (Socialist-Revolutionary) and Menshevik parties, is the
	  political expression of the vacillations of the petty
	  bourgeoisie. These parties now have their headquarters and
	  newspapers abroad, and are actually in a bloc with the whole
	  of the bourgeois counter-revolution and are serving it
	  loyally.

The shrewd leaders of the Russian big bourgeoisie headed by
	  Milyukov, the leader of the Cadet (Constitutional
	  Democratic) Party, have quite clearly, definitely and openly
	  appraised this role of the petty-bourgeois democrats, i.e.,
	  the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks. In connection
	  with the Kronstadt mutiny, in which the Mensheviks,
	  Socialist-Revolutionaries and whiteguards, joined forces,
	  Milyukov declared in favour of the “Soviets without
	  the Bolsheviks” slogan. Elaborating on the idea, he
	  wrote that the Socialist-Revolutionaries  and Mensheviks
	  “are welcome to try” (PravdaNo. 64,
	  1921, quoted from the ParisPosledniye Novosti[3]), because upon them devolves the
	  task offirst takingpower away from the
	  Bolsheviks. Milyukov, the leader of the big bourgeoisie, has
	  correctly appraised the lesson taught by all revolutions,
	  namely, that the petty-bourgeois democrats are incapable of
	  holding power, and always serve merely as a screen for the
	  dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, and a stepping stone to its
	  undivided power.

The proletarian revolution in Russia again and again
	  confirms this lesson of 1789-94 and 1848-49, and also what
	  Frederick Engels said in his letter to Bebel of December 11,
	  1884.

. . .“Pure democracy . . . when the moment of
	  revolution comes, acquires a temporary importance . . . as
	  the final sheet-anchor of the whole bourgeois and even
	  feudal economy. . . . Thus between March and September 1848
	  the whole feudal-bureaucratic mass strengthened the liberals
	  in order to hold down the revolutionary masses. . . . In any
	  case our sole adversary on the day of the crisis and on the
	  day after the crisis will be the whole of the reaction which
	  will group around pure democracy, and this,  I think, should
	  not be lost sight of.” (Published in Russian inKommunistichesky Trud[4]No. 360, June
	  9, 1921, in an article by Comrade V. Adoratsky: “Marx
	  and Engels on Democracy”. In German, published in the
	  book, Friedrich Engels,Politisches
	  Vermächtnis, Internationale Jugend-Bibliothek,
	  Nr. 12, Berlin, 1920, S. 19.)

Moscow, Kremlin, June 13, 1921

2.Speech On The Italian QuestionJune 28

Comrades, I should like to reply mainly to Comrade
	  Lazzari. He said: “Quote concrete facts, not
	  words.” Excellent. But if we trace the development of
	  the reformist opportunist trend in Italy, what will that be,
	  words or facts? In your speeches and in the whole of your
	  policy you lose sight of the fact, which is so important for
	  the socialist movement in Italy, that not only this trend,
	  but an opportunist reformist group has existed for quite a
	  long time. I still very well remember the time when
	  Bernstein started his opportunist propaganda, which ended in
	  social-patriotism, in the treason and bankruptcy of the
	  Second International. We have known Turati ever since, not
	  only by name, but for his propaganda in the Italian party
	  and in the Italian working-class movement, of which he has
	  been a disrupter for the past twenty years. Lack of time
	  prevents me from closely studying the material concerning
	  the Italian party; but I think that one of the most
	  important documents on this subject is a report, published
	  in a bourgeois Italian newspaper—I don’t
	  remember which,La Stampa[5]orCorriere
	  della Sera[6]—of the conference held by
	  Turati and his friends inReggio Emilia.[7]I compared that report with the
	  one published inAvanti![8]Is this not
	  proof enough? After the Second Congress of the Communist
	  International, we, in our controversy with Serrati and his
	  friends, openly and definitely told them what, in our
	  opinion, the situation was. We told them that the Italian
	  party could not become a Communist Party as long as it
	  tolerated people like Turati in its ranks.

What is this, political facts, or again just words? After
	  the Second Congress of the Communist International we openly
	  said to the Italian proletariat: “Don’t unite
	  with the reformists, with Turati.” Serrati launched a
	  series of articles in the Italian press in opposition to the
	  Communist  International and convened a special conference
	  of reformists.[9]Was all this mere words? It was
	  something more than a split: it was the creation of a new
	  party. One must have been blind not to have seen this. This
	  document is of decisive importance for this question. All
	  those who attended the Reggio Emilia conference must be
	  expelled from the party; they are Mensheviks—not
	  Russian, but Italian Mensheviks. Lazzari said: “We
	  know the Italian people’s mentality.” For my
	  part I would not dare to make such an assertion about the
	  Russian people, but that is not important. “Italian
	  Socialists understand the spirit of the Italian people very
	  well,” said Lazzari. Perhaps they do, I will not argue
	  about that. But they do not know Italian Menshevism, if the
	  concrete facts and the persistent refusal to eradicate
	  Menshevism is anything to go by. We are obliged to say
	  that—deplorable though it may be—the resolution
	  of our Executive Committee must be confirmed. A party which
	  tolerates opportunists and reformists like Turati in its
	  ranks cannot be affiliated to the Communist
	  International.

“Why should we change the name of the party?”
	  asks Comrade Lazzari. “The present one is quite
	  satisfactory.” But we cannot share this view. We know
	  the history of the Second International, its fall and
	  bankruptcy. Do we not know the history of the German party?
	  And do we not know that the great misfortune of the
	  working-class movement in Germany is that the break was not
	  brought about before the war? This cost the lives of twenty
	  thousand workers, whom the Scheidemannists and the Centrists
	  betrayed to the German Government by their polemics with and
	  complaints against the German Communists.[10]

And do we not now see the same thing in Italy? The Italian
	  party was never a truly revolutionary party. Its great
	  misfortune is that it did not break with the Mensheviks and
	  reformists before the war, and that the latter continued to
	  remain in the party. Comrade Lazzari says: “We fully
	  recognise the necessity of a break with the reformists; our
	  only disagreement is that we did not think it necessary to
	  bring it about at the Leghorn Congress.” But the facts
	  tell a different story. This is not the first time that we
	  are discussing Italian reformism. In arguing about this with
	  Serrati last year, we said: “You won’t mind us
	  asking why the split in the Italian party cannot be brought
	  about immediately, why it must be postponed?” What did
	  Serrati say in reply to that? Nothing. And Comrade Lazzari,
	  quoting an article by Frossard in which the latter said,
	  “We must be adroit and clever”, evidently thinks
	  that this is an argument in his favour and against us. I
	  think he is mistaken. On the contrary, it is an excellent
	  argument in our favour and against Comrade Lazzari. What
	  will the Italian workers say when you are obliged to explain
	  your conduct and your resignation? What will you tell them
	  if they declare our tactics to be clever and adroit compared
	  with the zigzags of the pseudo-Communist Left—the Left
	  which at times is not even simply Communist and more often
	  looks like anarchism?

What is the meaning of the tales told by Serrati and his
	  party about the Russians only wanting everyone to imitate
	  them? We want the very opposite. It takes more than
	  memorising communist resolutions and using revolutionary
	  phrases on every possible occasion. That is not enough, and
	  we are opposed beforehand to Communists who know this or
	  that resolution by heart. The mark of true communism is a
	  break with opportunism. We shall be quite frank and open
	  with those Communists who subscribe to this and, boldly, in
	  the conviction that we are right, will tell them:
	  “Don’t do anything stupid; be clever and
	  skilful.” But we shali speak in this way only with
	  Communists who have broken with the opportunists, something
	  that cannot yet be said about you. I repeat therefore: I
	  hope the Congress will confirm the resolution of the
	  Executive Committee. Comrade Lazzari said: “We are in
	  the preparatory period.” This is absolutely true. You
	  are in the preparatory period. The first stage of this
	  period is a break with the Mensheviks, similar to the one we
	  brought about with our Mensheviks in 1903. The sufferings
	  the whole of the German working class has had to endure
	  during this long and weary post-war period in the history of
	  the German revolution are due to the fact that the German
	  party did not break with the Mensheviks.

Comrade Lazzari said that the Italian party is passing
	  through the preparatory period. This I fully accept. And the
	  first stage is a definite, final, unambiguous and determined
	  break with reformism. When that is brought about the masses
	  will side solidly with communism. The second stage is by no
	  means a repetition of revolutionary slogans. It will be the
	  adoption of our wise and skilful decisions, which will
	  always be such, and which will always say: fundamental
	  revolutionary principles must be adapted to the specific
	  conditions in the various countries.

The revolution in Italy will run a different course from
	  that in Russia. It will start in a different way. How?
	  Neither you nor we know. The Italian Communists are not
	  always Communists to a sufficient degree. Did a single
	  Communist  show his mettle when the workers seized the
	  factories in Italy?[11]] No. At that
	  time, there was as yet no communism in Italy; there was a
	  certain amount of anarchism, but no Marxian communism. The
	  latter has still to be created and the masses of the workers
	  must be imbued with it by means of the experience of the
	  revolutionary struggle. And the first step along this road
	  is a final break with the Mensheviks, who for more than
	  twenty years have been collaborating and working with the
	  bourgeois government. It is quite Probable that Modigliani,
	  whom I was able to watch to some extent at the Zimmerwald
	  and Kienthal conferences, is a sufficiently astute
	  politician to keep out of the bourgeois government and to
	  keep in the centre of the Socialist Party, where he can be
	  far more useful to the bourgeoisie. But all the theories of
	  Turati and his friends, all their propaganda and agitation,
	  signify collaboration with the bourgeoisie. Is this not
	  proved by the numerous quotations in Gennari’s speech?
	  Indeed, it is the united front which Turati has already
	  prepared. That is why I must say to Comrade Lazzari:
	  “Speeches like yours and like the one which Comrade
	  Serrati made here do not help to prepare for the revolution,
	  they disorganise it. “ (Shouts:
	  “Bravo!”Applause.)

You had a considerable majority at Leghorn. You had 98,000
	  votes against 14,000 reformist and 58,000 communist
	  votes. As the beginning of a purely communist movement in a
	  country like Italy, with its well-known traditions, where
	  the ground has not been sufficiently prepared for a split,
	  this vote is a considerable achievement for the
	  Communists.

This is a great victory and tangible proof of the fact that
	  the working-class movement in Italy will develop faster than
	  our movement developed in Russia, because, if you are
	  familiar with the figures concerning our movement, you must
	  know that in February 1917, after the fall of tsarism and
	  during the bourgeois republic, we were still a minority
	  compared with the Mensheviks. Such was the position after
	  fifteen years of fierce fighting and splits. Our Right wing
	  did not grow—and it was not so easy to prevent it from
	  growing, as you seem to think when you speak of Russia in
	  such a disparaging tone. Undoubtedly, development in Italy
	  will proceed quite differently. After fifteen years of
	  struggle against the Mensheviks, and after the fall of
	  tsarism, we started work with a much smaller number of
	  adherents. You have 58,000 communistically minded workers
	  against 98,000 united Centrists who occupy an indefinite
	  position. This is proof, this is a fact, which should
	  certainly convince all those who refuse to close their eyes
	  to the mass movement of the Italian workers. Nothing comes
	  all at once. But it certainly proves that the mass of
	  workers—not the old leaders, the bureaucrats, the
	  professors, the journalists, but the class that is actually
	  exploited, the vanguard of the exploited—supports
	  us. And it proves what a great mistake you made at
	  Leghorn. This is a fact. You controlled 98,000 votes, but
	  you preferred to go with 14,000 reformists against 58,000
	  Communists. You should have gone with them even if they were
	  not genuine Communists, even if they were only adherents of
	  Bordiga—which is not true, for after the Second
	  Congress Bordiga quite honestly declared that he had
	  abandoned all anarchism and anti-parliamentarism. But what
	  did you do? You chose to unite with 14,000 reformists and to
	  break with 58,000 Communists. And this is the best proof
	  that Serrati’s policy has been disastrous for
	  Italy. We never wanted Serrati in Italy to copy the Russian
	  revolution. That would have been stupid. We are intelligent
	  and flexible enough to avoid such stupidity. But Serrati has
	  proved that his policy in Italy was wrong. Perhaps he should
	  have manoeuvred. This is the expression that he repeated
	  most often when he was here last year. He said: “We
	  know how to manoeuvre, we do not want slavish
	  imitation. That would be idiocy. We must manoeuvre, so as to
	  bring about a separation from opportunism. You Russians do
	  not know how to do that. We Italians are more skilful at
	  that sort of thing. That remains to be seen.” And what
	  is it we saw? Serrati executed a brilliant manoeuvre. He
	  broke away from 58,000 Communists. And now these comrades
	  come here and say: “If you reject us the masses will
	  be confused.” No, comrades, you are mistaken. The
	  masses of the workers in Italy are confused now, and it will
	  do them good if we tell them: “Comrades, you must
	  choose; Italian workers, you must choose between the
	  Communist International, which will never call upon you
	  slavishly to imitate the Russians, and the Mensheviks, whom
	  we have known for twenty years, and whom we shall never
	  tolerate as neighbours in a genuinely revolutionary
	  Communist International.” That is what we shall say to
	  the Italian workers. There can be no doubt about the
	  result. The masses of workers will follow us. (Loud
	  approval.)

3Speech In Defence Of The Tactics Of The Communist InternationalJuly 1

Comrades! I deeply regret that I must confine myself to
	  self-defence. (Laughter.) I say deeply regret,
	  because after acquainting myself with Comrade
	  Terracini’s speech and the amendments introduced by
	  three delegations, I should very much like to take the
	  offensive, for, properly speaking, offensive operations are
	  essential against the views  defended by Terracini and these
	  three delegations.[12]If the Congress is not going to
	  wage a vigorous offensive against such errors, against such
	  “Leftist” stupidities, the whole movement is
	  doomed. That is my deep conviction. But we are organised and
	  disciplined Marxists. We cannot be satisfied with speeches
	  against individual comrades. We Russians are already sick
	  and tired of these Leftist phrases. We are men of
	  organisation. In drawing up our plans, we must proceed in an
	  organised way and try to find the correct line. It is, of
	  course, no secret that our theses are a compromise. And why
	  not? Among Communists, who have already convened their Third
	  Congress and have worked out definite fundamental
	  principles, compromises under certain conditions are
	  necessary. Our theses, put forward by the Russian
	  delegation, were studied and prepared in the most careful
	  way and were the result of long arguments and meetings with
	  various delegations. They aim at establishing the basic line
	  of the Communist International and are especially necessary
	  now after we have not only formally condemned the real
	  Centrists but have expelled them from the Party. Such are
	  the facts. I have to stand up for these theses. Now, when
	  Terracini comes forward and says that we must continue the
	  fight against the Centrists, and goes on to tell how it is
	  intended to wage the fight, I say that if these amendments
	  denote a definite trend, a relentless fight against this
	  trend is essential, for otherwise there is no communism and
	  no Communist International. I am surprised that the German
	  Communist Workers’ Party has not put its signature to
	  these amendments. (Laughter.) Indeed, just listen
	  to what Terracini is defending and what his amendments
	  say. They begin in this way: “On page 1, column 1,
	  line 19, the word ‘majority’ should be
	  deleted.” Majority! That is extremely dangerous!
	  (Laughter.) Then further: instead of the words
	  “’basic propositions’, insert
	  ‘aims’”. Basic propositions and aims are
	  two different things; even the anarchists will agree with us
	  about aims, because they too stand for the abolition of
	  exploitation and class distinctions.

I have met and talked with few anarchists in my life, but
	  all the same I have seen enough of them. I sometimes
	  succeeded in reaching agreement with them about aims, but
	  never as regards principles. Principles are not an aim, a
	  programme, a tactic or a theory. Tactics and theory are not
	  principles. How do we differ from the anarchists on
	  principles? The principles of communism consist in the
	  establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat and in
	  the use of state coercion in the transition period. Such are
	  the principles of communism, but they are not its aim. And
	  the comrades who have tabled this proposal have made a
	  mistake.

Secondly, it is stated there: “the word
	  ‘majority’ should be deleted.” Read the
	  whole passage:

“The Third Congress of the Communist International is
	  setting out to review questions of tactics under conditions
	  when in a whole number of countries the objective situation
	  has become aggravated in a revolutionary sense, and when a
	  whole number of communist mass parties have been organised,
	  which, incidentally, in their actual revolutionary struggle
	  have nowhere taken into their hands the virtual leadership
	  of the majority of the working class.”

And so, they want the word “majority”
	  deleted. If we cannot agree on such simple things, then I do
	  not understand how we can work together and lead the
	  proletariat to victory. Then it is not at all surprising
	  that we cannot reach agreement on the question of principles
	  either. Show me a party which has already won the majority
	  of the working class. Terracini did not even think of
	  adducing any example. Indeed, there is no such example.

And so, the word “aims” is to be put instead of
	  “principles”, and the word
	  “majority” is to be deleted. No, thank you! We
	  shall not do it. Even the German party—one of the
	  best—does not have the majority of the working class
	  behind it. That is a fact. We, who face a most severe
	  struggle, are not afraid to utter this truth, but here you
	  have three delegations who wish to begin with an untruth,
	  for if the Congress deletes the word “majority”
	  it will show that it wants an untruth. That is quite
	  clear.

Then comes the following amendment:  “On page 4,
	  column 1, line 10, the words ‘Open Letter’,
	  etc., should be deleted.’’[13]I
	  have already heard one speech today in which I found the
	  same idea. But there it was quite natural. It was the speech
	  of Comrade Hempel, a member of the German Communist
	  Workers’ Party. He said: “The ‘Open
	  Letter’ was an act of opportunism.” To my deep
	  regret and shame, I have already heard such views
	  privately. But when, at the Congress, after such prolonged
	  debate, the “Open Letter” is declared
	  opportunist—that is a shame and a disgrace! And now
	  Comrade Terracini comes forward on behalf of the three
	  delegations and wants to delete the words “Open
	  Letter”. What is the good then of the fight against
	  the German Communist Workers’ Party? The “Open
	  Letter” is a model political step. This is stated in
	  our theses and we must certainly stand by it. It is a model
	  because it is the first act of a practical method of winning
	  over the majority of the working class. In Europe, where
	  almost all the proletarians are organised, we must win the
	  majority of the working class and anyone who fails to
	  understand this is lost to the communist movement; he will
	  never learn anything if he has failed to learn that much
	  during the three years of the great revolution.

Terracini says that we were victorious in Russia although
	  the Party was very small. He is dissatisfied with what is
	  said in the theses about Czechoslovakia. Here there are 27
	  amendments, and if I had a mind to criticise them I should,
	  like some orators, have to speak for not less than three
	  hours. . . . We have heard here that in Czechoslovakia the
	  Communist Party has 300,000-400,000 members, and that it is
	  essential to win over the majority, to create an invincible
	  force and continue enlisting fresh masses of
	  workers. Terracini is already prepared to attack. He says:
	  if there are already 400,000 workers in the party, why
	  should we want more? Delete! (Laughter.) He is
	  afraid of the word “masses” and wants to
	  eradicate it. Comrade Terracini has understood very little
	  of the Russian revolution. In Russia, we were a small party,
	  but we had with us in addition the majority of the Soviets
	  of Workers’ and Peasants’ Deputies throughout
	  the country. (Cries: “Quite true!”) Do
	  you have anything of the sort? We had with us almost half
	  the army, which then numbered at least ten million men. Do
	  you really have the majority of the army behind you? Show me
	  such a country! If these views of Comrade Terracini are
	  shared by three other delegations, then something is wrong
	  in the International! Then we must say: “Stop! There
	  must be a decisive fight! Otherwise the Communist
	  International is lost.” (Animation.)

On the basis of my experience I must say, although I am
	  taking up a defensive position (laughter),
	  that-the aim and the principle of my speech consist in
	  defence of the resolution and theses proposed by our
	  delegation. It would, of course, be pedantic to say that not
	  a letter in them must be altered. I have had to read many
	  resolutions and I am well aware that very good amendments
	  could he introduced in every line of them. But that would be
	  pedantry. If, nevertheless, I declare now that in a
	  political sense not a single letter can be altered, it is
	  because the amendments, as I see them, are of a quite
	  definite political nature and because they lead us along a
	  path that is harmful and dangerous to the Communist
	  International. Therefore, I and all of us and the Russian
	  delegation must insist that not a single letter in the
	  theses is altered. We have not only condemned our Right-wing
	  elements—we have expelled them. But if, like
	  Terracini, people turn the fight against the Rightists into
	  a sport, then we must say: “Stop! Otherwise the danger
	  will become too grave!”

Terracini has defended the theory of an offensive
	  struggle.[14]In this connection the
	  notorious amendments propose a formula two or three pages
	  long. There is no need for us to read them. We know what
	  they say. Terracini has stated the issue quite clearly. He
	  has defended the theory of an offensive, pointing out
	  “dynamic tendencies” and the “transition
	  from passivity to activity”. We in Russia have already
	  had adequate political experience in the struggle against
	  the Centrists. As long as fifteen years ago, we were waging
	  a struggle against our opportunists and Centrists, and also
	  against the Mensheviks, and we were victorious not only over
	  the Mensheviks, but also over the semi-anarchists.

If we had not done this, we would not have been able to
	  retain power in our hands for three and a half years, or
	  even for three and a half weeks, and we would not have been
	  able to convene communist congresses here. “Dynamic
	  tendencies”, “transition from passivity to
	  activity”—these are all phrases the Left
	  Socialist-Revolutionaries had used against us. Now they are
	  in prison, defending there the “aims of
	  communism” and thinking of the “transition from
	  passivity to activity”. (Laughter.) The line
	  of reasoning followed in the proposed amendments is an
	  impossible one, because they contain no Marxism, no
	  political experience, and no reasoning. Have we in our
	  theses elaborated a general theory of the revolutionary
	  offensive? Has Radek or anyone of us committed such a
	  stupidity? We have spoken of the theory of an offensive in
	  relation to a quite definite country and at a quite definite
	  period.

From our struggle against the Mensheviks we can quote
	  instances showing that even before the first revolution
	  there were some who doubted whether the revolutionary party
	  aught to conduct an offensive. If such doubts assailed any
	  Social-Democrat—as we all called ourselves at that
	  time—we took up the struggle against him and said that
	  he was an opportunist, that he did not understand anything
	  of Marxism and the dialectics of the revolutionary party. Is
	  it really possible for a party to dispute whether a
	  revolutionary offensive is permissible in general? To find
	  such examples in this country one would have to go back some
	  fifteen years. If there are Centrists or disguised Centrists
	  who dispute the theory of the offensive, they should be
	  immediately expelled. That question cannot give rise to
	  disputes. But the fact that-even now, after three years of
	  the Communist International, we are arguing about
	  “dynamic tendencies”, about the
	  “transition from passivity to
	  activity”—that is a shame and a disgrace.

We do not have any dispute about this with Comrade Radek,
	  who drafted these theses jointly with us. Perhaps it was not
	  quite correct to begin talking in Germanyabout the
	  theoryof the revolutionary offensive when an actual
	  offensive had not been prepared. Nevertheless the March
	  action was a great step forward in spite of the mistakes of
	  its leaders. But this does not matter. Hundreds of thousands
	  of workers fought heroically. However courageously the
	  German Communist Workers’ Party fought against the
	  bourgeoisie, we must repeat what Comrade Radek said in a
	  Russian article about Hölz. If anyone, even an
	  anarchist, fights heroically against the bourgeoisie, that
	  is, of course, a great thing; but it is a real step forward
	  if hundreds of thousands fight against the vile provocation
	  of the social-traitors and against the bourgeoisie.

It is very important to be critical of one’s
	  mistakes. We began with that. If anyone, after a struggle in
	  which hundreds of thousands have taken part, comes out
	  against this struggle and behaves like Levi, then he should
	  be expelled. And that is what was done. But we must draw a
	  lesson from this. Had we really prepared for an offensive?
	  (Radek: “We had not even prepared for
	  defence.”) Indeed only newspaper articles talked of an
	  offensive. This theory as applied to the March action in
	  Germany in 1921 was incorrect—we have to admit
	  that—but, in general, the theory of the revolutionary
	  offensive is not at all false.

We were victorious in Russia, and with such ease, because we
	  prepared for our revolution during the imperialist war. That
	  was the first condition. Ten million workers and peasants in
	  Russia were armed, and our slogan was: an immediate peace at
	  all costs. We were victorious because the vast mass of the
	  peasants were revolutionarily disposed against the big
	  landowners. The Socialist-Revolutionaries, the adherents of
	  the Second and the Two-and-a-Half Internationals, were a big
	  peasant party in November 1917. They demanded revolutionary
	  methods but, like true heroes of the Second and the
	  Two-and-a-Half Internationals, lacked the courage to act in
	  a revolutionary way. In August  and September 1917 we said:
	  “Theoretically we are fighting the
	  Socialist-Revolutionaries as we did before, but practically
	  we are ready to accept their programme because only we are
	  able to put it into effect.” We did just what we
	  said. The peasantry, ill-disposed towards us in November
	  1917, after our victory, who sent a majority of
	  Socialist-Revolutionaries into the Constituent Assembly,
	  were won over by us, if not in the course of a few
	  days—as I mistakenly expected and predicted—at
	  any rate in the course of a few weeks. The difference was
	  not great. Can you point out any country in Europe where you
	  could win over the majority of the peasantry in the course
	  of a few weeks? Italy perhaps? (Laughter.) If it is
	  said that we were victorious in Russia in spite of not
	  having a big party, that only proves that those who say it
	  have not understood the Russian revolution and that they
	  have absolutely no understanding of how to prepare for a
	  revolution.

Our first step was to create a real Communist Party so as to
	  know whom we were talking to and whom we could fully
	  trust. The slogan of the First and Second congresses was
	  “Down with the Centrists!” We cannot hope to
	  master even the ABC of communism, unless all along the line
	  and throughout the world we make short shrift of the
	  Centrists and semi-Centrists, whom in Russia we call
	  Mensheviks. Our first task is to create a genuinely
	  revolutionary party and to break with the Mensheviks. But
	  that is only a preparatory school. We are already convening
	  the Third Congress, and Comrade Terracini keeps saying that
	  thc task of the preparatory school collsists in hunting out,
	  pursuing and exposing Centrists and semi-Centrists. No,
	  thank you! We have already done this long enough. At the
	  Second Congress we said that the Centrists are our
	  enemies. But, we must go forward really. The second stage,
	  after organising into a party, consists in learning to
	  prepare for revolution. In many countries we have not even
	  learned how to assume the leadership. We were victorious in
	  Russia not only because the undisputed majority of the
	  working class was on our side (during the elections in 1917
	  the overwhelming majority of the workers were with us
	  against the Mensheviks), but also because half the army,
	  immediately after our seizure of power, and nine-tenths of
	  the peasants,  in the course of some weeks, came over to our
	  side; we were victorious because we adopted the agrarian
	  programme of the Socialist-Revolutionaries instead of our
	  own, and put it into effect. Our victory lay in the fact
	  that we carried out the Socialist-Revolutionary programme;
	  that is why this victory was so easy. Is it possible that
	  you in the West can have such illusions? It is ridiculous!
	  Just compare the concrete economic conditions, Comrade
	  Terracini and all of you who have signed the proposed
	  amendments! In spite of the fact that the majority so
	  rapidly came to be on our side, the difficulties confronting
	  us after our victory were very great. Nevertheless we won
	  through because we kept in mind not only our aims but also
	  our principles, and did not tolerate in our Party those who
	  kept silent about principles but talked of aims,
	  “dynamic tendencies” and the “transition
	  from passivity to activity”. Perhaps we shall be
	  blamed for preferring to keep such gentlemen in prison. But
	  dictatorship is impossible in any other way. We must prepare
	  for dictatorship, and this consists in combating such
	  phrases and such amendments. (Laughter.)
	  Throughout, our theses speak of the masses. But, comrades,
	  we need to understand what is meant by masses. The German
	  Communist Workers’ Party, the Left-wing comrades,
	  misuse this word. But Comrade Terracini, too, and all those
	  who have signed these amendments, do not know how the word
	  “masses” should be read.

I have been speaking too long as it is; hence I wish to say
	  only a few words about the concept of
	  “masses”. It is one that changes in accordance
	  with the changes in the nature of the struggle. At the
	  beginning of the struggle it took only a few thousand
	  genuinely revolutionary workers to warrant talk of the
	  masses. If the party succeeds in drawing into the struggle
	  not only its own members, if it also succeeds in arousing
	  non-party people, it is well on the way to winning the
	  masses. During our revolutions there were instances when
	  several thousand workers represented the masses. In the
	  history of our movement, and of our struggle against the
	  Mensheviks, you will find many examples where several
	  thousand workers in a town were enough to give a clearly
	  mass character to the movement. You have a mass when several
	  thousand non-party workers, who  usually live a philistine
	  life and drag out a miserable existence, and who have never
	  heard anything about politics, begin to act in a
	  revolutionary way. If the movement spreads and intensifies,
	  it gradually develops into a real revolution. We saw this in
	  1905 and 1917 during three revolutions, and you too will
	  have to go through all this. When the revolution has been
	  sufficiently prepared, the concept “masses”
	  becomes different: several thousand workers no longer
	  constitute the masses. This word begins to denote something
	  else. The concept of “masses” undergoes a change
	  so that it implies the majority, and not simply a majority
	  of the workers alone, but the majority of all the
	  exploited. Any other kind of interpretation is impermissible
	  for a revolutionary, and any other sense of the word becomes
	  incomprehensible. It is possible that even a small party,
	  the British or American party, for example, after it has
	  thoroughly studied the course of political development and
	  become acquainted with the life and customs of the non party
	  masses, will at a favourable moment evoke a revolutionary
	  movement  (Comrade Radek has pointed to the miners’
	  strike as a good example[15]). You will
	  have a mass movement if such a party comes forward with its
	  slogans at such a moment and succeeds in getting millions of
	  workers to follow it. I would not altogether deny that a
	  revolution can be started by a very small party and brought
	  to a victorious conclusion. But one must have a knowledge of
	  the methods by which the masses can be won over. For this
	  thoroughgoing preparation of revolution is essential. But
	  here you have comrades coming forward with the assertion
	  that we should immediately give up the demand for
	  “big” masses. They must be challenged. Without
	  thoroughgoing preparation you will not achieve victory in
	  any country. Quite a small party is sufficient to lead the
	  masses. At certain times there is no necessity for big
	  organisations.

But to win, we must have the sympathy of the masses. An
	  absolute majority is not always essential; but what is
	  essential to win and retain power is not only the majority
	  of the working class—I use the term “working
	  class” in its West-European sense, i.e., in the sense
	  of the industrial proletariat—but also the majority of
	  the working and exploited rural population. Have you thought
	  about this?

	  Do we find in Terracini’s speech even a hint at this
	  thought? He speaks only of “dynamic tendency”
	  and the “transition from passivity to
	  activity”. Does he devote even a single word to the
	  food question? And yet the workers demand their victuals,
	  although they can put up with a great deal and go hungry, as
	  we have seen to a certain extent in Russia. We must,
	  therefore, win over to our side not only the majority of the
	  working class, but also the majority of the working and
	  exploited rural population. Have you prepared for this?
	  Almost nowhere.

And so, I repeat: I must unreservedly defend our theses and
	  I feel I am bound to do it. We not only condemned the
	  Centrists but expelled them from the Party. Now we must deal
	  with another aspect, which we also consider dangerous. We
	  must tell the comrades the truth in the most polite form
	  (and in our theses it is told in a kind and considerate way)
	  so that no one feels insulted: we are confronted now by
	  other, more important questions than that of attacks on the
	  Centrists. We have had enough of this question. It has
	  already become somewhat boring. Instead, the comrades ought
	  to learn to wage a real revolutionary struggle. The German
	  workers have already begun this. Hundreds of thousands of
	  proletarians in that country have been fighting
	  heroically. Anyone who opposes this struggle should be
	  immediately expelled. But after that we must not engage in
	  empty word-spinning but must immediately begin to learn, on
	  the basis of the mistakes made, how to organise the struggle
	  better. We must not conceal our mistakes from the
	  enemy. Anyone who is afraid of this is no revolutionary. On
	  the contrary, if we openly declare to the workers:
	  “Yes, we have made mistakes”, it will mean that
	  they will not be repeated and we shall be able better to
	  choose the moment. And if during the struggle itself the
	  majority of the working people prove to be on our
	  side—not only the majority of the workers, but the
	  majority of all the exploited and oppressed—then we
	  shall really be victorious. (Prolonged,stormy
	  applause.)

4Report On The Tactics Of The R.C.P.July 5

Comrades, strictly speaking I was unable to prepare properly
	  for this report. All that I was able to prepare for you in
	  the way of systematic material was a translation of my
	  pamphlet on the tax in kind and the theses on the tactics of
	  the Russian Communist Party. To this I merely want to add a
	  few explanations and remarks.

I think that to explain our Party’s tactics we must
	  first of all examine theinternational
	  situation. We have already had a detailed discussion of
	  the economic position of capitalism  internationally, and
	  the Congress has adopted definite resolutions on this
	  subject.[16]I deal with this subject in my
	  theses very briefly, and only from the political stand
	  point. I leave aside the economic basis, but I think that in
	  discussing the international position of our Republic we
	  must, politically, take into account the fact that a certain
	  equilibrium has now undoubtedly set in between the forces
	  that have been waging an open, armed struggle against each
	  other for the supremacy of this or that leading class. It is
	  an equilibrium between bourgeois society, the international
	  bourgeoisie as a whole, and Soviet Russia. It is, of course,
	  an equilibrium only in a limited sense. It is only in
	  respect to this military struggle, I say, that a certain
	  equilibrium has been brought about in the international
	  situation. It must be emphasised, of course, that this is
	  only a relative equilibrium, and a very unstable one. Much
	  inflammable material has accumulated in capitalist
	  countries, as well as in those countries which up to now
	  have been regarded merely as the objects and not as the
	  subjects of history, i.e., the colonies and
	  semi-colonies. It is quite possible, therefore, that
	  insurrections, great battles and  revolutions may break out
	  there sooner or later, and very suddenly too. During the
	  past few years we have witnessed the direct struggle waged
	  by the international bourgeoisie against the first
	  proletarian republic. This struggle has been at the centre
	  of the world political situation, and it is there that a
	  change has taken place. Inasmuch as the attempt of the
	  international bourgeoisie to strangle our Republic has
	  failed, an equilibrium has set in, and a very unstable one
	  it is, of course.

We know perfectly well, of course, that the international
	  bourgeoisie is at present much stronger than our Republic,
	  and that it is only the peculiar combination of
	  circumstances that is preventing it from continuing the war
	  against us. For several weeks now, we have witnessed fresh
	  attempts in the Far East to renew the invasion,[17]and there is not the slightest doubt that similar attempts
	  will continue. Our Party has no doubts whatever on that
	  score. The important thing for us is to establish that an
	  unstable equilibrium does exist, and that we must take
	  advantage of this respite, taking into consideration the
	  characteristic features of the present situation, adapting
	  our tactics to the specific features of this situation, and
	  never forgetting that the necessity for armed struggle may
	  arise again quite suddenly. Our task is still to organise
	  and build up the Red Army. In connection with the food
	  problem, too, we must continue to think first of all of our
	  Red Army. We can adopt no other line in the present
	  international situation, when we must still be prepared for
	  fresh attacks and fresh attempts at invasion on the part of
	  the international bourgeoisie. In regard to our practical
	  policy, however, the fact that a certain equilibrium has
	  been reached in the international situation has some
	  significance, but only in the sense that we must admit that,
	  although the revolutionary movement has made-progress, the
	  development of the international revolution this year has
	  not proceeded along as straight a line as we had
	  expected.

When we started the international revolution, we did so not
	  because we were convinced that we could forestall its
	  development, but because a number of circumstances compelled
	  us to start it. We thought: either the international
	  revolution comes to our assistance, and in that case our
	  victory will be fully assured, or we shall do our modest
	  revolutionary work in the conviction that even in the event
	  of defeat we shall have served the cause of the revolution
	  and that our experience will benefit other revolutions. It
	  was clear to us that without the support of the
	  international world revolution the victory of the
	  proletarian revolution was impossible. Before the
	  revolution, and even after it, we thought: either revolution
	  breaks out in the other countries, in the capitalistically
	  more developed countries, immediately, or at least very
	  quickly, or we must perish. In spite of this conviction, we
	  did all we possibly could to preserve the Soviet system
	  under all circumstances, come what may, because we knew that
	  we were not only working for ourselves, but also for the
	  international revolution. We knew this, we repeatedly
	  expressed this conviction before the October Revolution,
	  immediately after it, and at the time we signed the
	  Brest-Litovsk Peace Treaty. And, generally speaking, this
	  was correct.

Actually, however, events did not proceed along as straight
	  a line as we had expected. In the other big,
	  capitalistically more developed countries the revolution has
	  not broken out to this day. True, we can say with
	  satisfaction that the revolution is developing all over the
	  world, and it is only thanks to this that the international
	  bourgeoisie is unable to strangle us, inspite of the fact
	  that, militarily and economically, it is a hundred times
	  stronger than we are. (Applause.)

In Paragraph 2 of the theses I examine the manner in which
	  this situation arose, and the conclusions that must be drawn
	  from it. Let me add that my final conclusion is the
	  following: the development of the international revolution,
	  which we predicted, is proceeding, but not along as straight
	  a line as we had expected. It becomes clear at the first
	  glance that after the conclusion of peace, bad as it was, it
	  proved impossible to call forth revolution in other
	  capitalist countries, although we know that the signs of
	  revolution were very considerable and numerous, in fact,
	  much more considerable and numerous than we thought at the
	  time. Pamphlets are now beginning to appear which tell us
	  that during the past few years and months these
	  revolutionary symptoms in Europe have been much more serious
	  than we had suspected. What, in that case, must we do now?
	  We must now thoroughly prepare for revolution and make a
	  deep study of its concrete development in the advanced
	  capitalist countries. This is the first lesson we must draw
	  from the international situation. As for our Russian
	  Republic, we must take advantage of this brief respite in
	  order to adapt our tactics to this zigzag line of
	  history. This equilibrium is very important politically,
	  because we clearly see that in many West-European countries,
	  where the broad mass of the working class, and possibly the
	  overwhelming majority of the population, are organised, the
	  main bulwark of the bourgeoisie consists of the hostile
	  working-class organisations affiliated to the Second and the
	  Two-and-a-Half Internationals. I speak of this in Paragraph
	  2 of the theses, and I think that in this connection I need
	  deal with only two points, which were discussed during the
	  debate on the question of tactics. First, winning over the
	  majority of the proletariat. The more organised the
	  proletariat is in a capitalistically developed country, the
	  greater thoroughness does history demand of us in preparing
	  for revolution, and the more thoroughly must we win over the
	  majority of the working class. Second, the main bulwark of
	  capitalism in the industrially developed capitalist
	  countries is the part of the working class that is organised
	  in the Second and the Two-and-a-Half Internationals. But for
	  the support of this section of the workers, these
	  counter-revolutionary elements within the working class, the
	  international bourgeoisie would be altogether unable to
	  retain its position. (Applause.)

Here I would also like to emphasise the significance ofthe movement in the colonies. In this respect we
	  see in all the old parties, in all the bourgeois and
	  petty-bourgeois labour parties affiliated to the Second and
	  the Two-and-a Half Internationals, survivals of the old
	  sentimental views: they insist on their profound sympathy
	  for oppressed colonial and semi-colonial peoples. The
	  movement in the colonial countries is still regarded as an
	  insignificant national and totally peaceful movement. But
	  this is not so. It has undergone great change since the
	  beginning of the twentieth century: millions and hundreds of
	  millions, in fact the overwhelming majority of the
	  population of the globe, are  now coming forward as
	  independent, active and revolutionary factors. It is
	  perfectly clear that in the impending decisive battles in
	  the world revolution, the movement of the majority of the
	  population of the globe, initially directed towards national
	  liberation, will turn against capitalism and imperialism and
	  will, perhaps, play a much more revolutionary part than we
	  expect. It is important to emphasise the fact that, for the
	  first time in our International, we have taken up the
	  question of preparing for this struggle. Of course, there
	  are many more difficulties in this enormous sphere than in
	  any other, but at all events the movement is advancing. And
	  in spite of the fact that the masses of toilers—the
	  peasants in the colonial countries—are still backward,
	  they will play a very important revolutionary part in the
	  coming phases of the world revolution. (Animated
	  approval.)

As regards the internal political position of our Republic I
	  must start with a close examination of class
	  relationships. During the past few months changes have taken
	  place in this sphere, and we have witnessed the formation of
	  new organisations of the exploiting class directed against
	  us. The aim of socialism is to abolish classes. In the front
	  ranks of the exploiting class we find the big landowners and
	  the industrial capitalists. In regard to them, the work of
	  destruction is fairly easy; it can be completed within a few
	  months, and sometimes even a few weeks or days. We in Russia
	  have expropriated our exploiters, the big landowners as well
	  as the capitalists. They had no organisations of their own
	  during the war and operated merely as the appendages of the
	  military forces of the international bourgeoisie. Now, after
	  we have repulsed the attacks of the international
	  counter-revolution, organisations of the Russian bourgeoisie
	  and of all the Russian counter-revolutionary parties have
	  been formed abroad. The number of Russian émigrés
	  scattered in all foreign countries may be estimated at one
	  and a half to two millions. In nearly every country they
	  publish daily newspapers, and all the parties, landowner and
	  petty-bourgeois, not excluding the Socialist-Revolutionaries
	  and Mensheviks, have numerous ties with foreign bourgeois
	  elements, that is to say, they obtain enough money to run
	  their own press. We find the collaboration abroad of
	  absolutely all the political parties that formerly existed
	  in Russia, and we see how the “free” Russian
	  press abroad, from the Socialist-Revolutionary and Menshevik
	  press to the most reactionary monarchist press, is
	  championing the great landed interests. This, to a certain
	  extent, facilitates our task, because we can more easily
	  observe the forces of the enemy, his state of organisation,
	  and the political trends in his camp. On the other hand, of
	  course, it hinders our work, because these Russian
	  counter-revolutionary émigrés use every means at
	  their disposal to prepare for a fight against us. This fight
	  again shows that, taken as a whole, the class instinct and
	  class-consciousness of the ruling classes are still superior
	  to those of the oppressed classes, notwithstanding the fact
	  that the Russian revolution has done more than any previous
	  revolution in this respect. In Russia, there is hardly a
	  village in which the people, the oppressed, have not been
	  roused. Nevertheless, if we take a cool look at the state of
	  organisation and political clarity of views of the Russian
	  counter-revolutionary émigrés, we shall find that
	  the class-consciousness of the bourgeoisie is still superior
	  to that of the exploited and the oppressed. These people
	  make every possible attempt and skilfully take advantage of
	  every opportunity to attack Soviet Russia in one way or
	  another, and to dismember it. It would be very
	  instructive—and I think the foreign comrades will do
	  that—systematically to watch the most important
	  aspirations, the most important tactical moves, and the most
	  important trends of this Russian counter-revolution. It
	  operates chiefly abroad, and it will not be very difficult
	  for the foreign comrades to watch it. In some respects, we
	  ought to learn from this enemy. These counter-revolutionary
	  émigrés are very well informed, they are
	  excellently organised and are good strategists. And I think
	  that a systematic comparison and study of the manner in
	  which they are organised and take advantage of every
	  opportunity may have a powerful propaganda effect upon the
	  working class. This is not general theory, it is practical
	  politics; here we can see what the enemy has learned. During
	  the past few years, the Russian bourgeoisie has suffered a
	  terrible defeat. There is an old saying that a beaten army
	  learns a great deal. The beaten reactionary army has learned
	  a  great deal, and has learned it thoroughly. It is learning
	  with great avidity, and has really made much headway. When
	  we took power at one swoop, the Russian bourgeoisie was
	  unorganised and politically undeveloped. Now, I think, its
	  development is on a par with modern, West-European
	  development. We must take this into account, we must improve
	  our own organisation and methods, and we shall do our utmost
	  to achieve this. It was relatively easy for us, and I think
	  that it will be equally easy for other revolutions, to cope
	  with these two exploiting classes.

But, in addition to this class of exploiters, there is in
	  nearly all capitalist countries, with the exception,
	  perhaps, of Britain, a class of small producers and small
	  farmers. The main problem of the revolution now is how to
	  fight these two classes. In order to be rid of them, we must
	  adopt methods other than those employed against the big
	  landowners and capitalists. We could simply expropriate and
	  expel both of these classes, and that is what we did. But we
	  cannot do the same thing with the remaining capitalist
	  classes, the small producers and the petty bourgeoisie,
	  which are found in all countries. In most capitalist
	  countries, these classes constitute a very considerable
	  minority, approximately from thirty to forty-five per cent
	  of the population. Add to them the petty-bourgeois elements
	  of the working class, and you get even more than fifty per
	  cent. These cannot be expropriated or expelled; other
	  methods of struggle must be adopted in their case. From the
	  international standpoint, if we regard the international
	  revolution as one process, the significance of the period
	  into which we are now entering in Russia is, in essence,
	  that we must now find a practical solution for the problem
	  of the relations the proletariat should establish with this
	  last capitalist class in Russia. All Marxists have a correct
	  and ready solution for this problem in theory. But theory
	  and practice are two different things, and the practical
	  solution of this problem is by no means the same as the
	  theoretical solution. We know definitely that we have made
	  serious mistakes. From the international standpoint, it is a
	  sign of great progress that we are now trying to determine
	  the attitude the proletariat in power should adopt towards
	  the last capitalist class—the rock-bottom  of
	  capitalism—small private property, the small
	  producer. This problem now confronts us in a practical
	  way. I think we shall solve it. At all events, the
	  experiment we are making will be useful for future
	  proletarian revolutions, and they will be able to make
	  better technical preparations for solving it.

In my theses I tried to analysethe problem of the
	  relations between the proletariat and the
	  peasantry. For the first time in history there is a
	  state with only two classes, the proletariat and the
	  peasantry. The latter constitutes the overwhelming majority
	  of the population. It is, of course, very backward. How do
	  the relations between the peasantry and the proletariat,
	  which holds political power, find practical expression in
	  the development of the revolution? The first form is
	  alliance, close alliance. This is a very difficult task, but
	  at any rate it is economically and politically feasible.

How did we approach this problem practically? We concluded
	  an alliance with the peasantry. We interpret this alliance
	  in the following way: the proletariat emancipates the
	  peasantry from the exploitation of the bourgeoisie, from its
	  leadership and influence, and wins it over to its own side
	  in order jointly to defeat the exploiters.

The Menshevik argument runs like this: the peasantry
	  constitutes a majority; we are pure democrats, therefore,
	  the majority should decide. But as the peasantry cannot
	  operate on its own, this, in practice, means nothing more
	  nor less than the restoration of capitalism. The slogan is
	  the same: Alliance with the peasantry. When we say that, we
	  mean strengthening and consolidating the proletariat: We
	  have tried to give effect to this alliance between the
	  proletariat and the peasantry, and the first stage was a
	  military alliance. The three years of the Civil War created
	  enormous difficulties, but in certain respects they
	  facilitated our task. This may-sound odd, but it is
	  true. The war was not something new for the peasants; a war
	  against the exploiters, against the big landowners, was
	  something they quite understood. The overwhelming majority
	  of the peasants were on our side. In spite of the enormous
	  distances, and the fact that the overwhelming majority of
	  our peasants are unable to read or write, they assimilated
	  our propaganda very easily. This proves that the broad
	  masses—and  this applies also to the most advanced
	  countries—learn faster from their own practical
	  experience than from books. In Russia, moreover, learning
	  from practical experience was facilitated for the peasantry
	  by the fact that the country is so exceptionally large that
	  in the same period different parts of it were passing
	  through different stages of development.

In Siberia and in the Ukraine the counter-revolution was
	  able to gain a temporary victory because there the
	  bourgeoisie had the peasantry on its side, because the
	  peasants were against us. The peasants frequently said,
	  “We are Bolsheviks, but not Communists. We are for the
	  Bolsheviks because they drove out the landowners; but we are
	  not for the Communists because they are opposed to
	  individual farming.” And for a time, the
	  counter-revolution managed to win out in Siberia and in the
	  Ukraine because the bourgeoisie made headway in the struggle
	  for influence over the peasantry. But it took only a very
	  short time to open the peasants’ eyes. They quickly
	  acquired practical experience and soon said, “Yes, the
	  Bolsheviks are rather unpleasant people, we don’t like
	  them, but still they are better than the whiteguards and the
	  Constituent Assembly.” “Constituent
	  Assembly” is a term of abuse not only among the
	  educated Communists, but also among the peasants. They know
	  from practical experience that the Constituent Assembly and
	  the whiteguards stand for the same thing, that the former is
	  inevitably followed by the latter. The Mensheviks also
	  resort to a military alliance with the peasantry, but they
	  fail to understand that a military alliance alone is
	  inadequate. There can be no military alliance without an
	  economic alliance. It takes more than air to keep a man
	  alive; our alliance with the peasantry could not possibly
	  have lasted any length of time without the economic
	  foundation, which was the basis of our victory in the war
	  against our bourgeoisie. After all our bourgeoisie has
	  united with the whole of the international bourgeoisie.

The basis of our economic alliance with the peasantry was,
	  of course, very simple, and even crude. The peasant obtained
	  from us all the land and support against the big
	  landowners. In return for this, we were to obtain food. This
	  alliance was something entirely new and did not rest on the
	  ordinary relations between commodity producers and
	  consumers. Our peasants had a much better understanding of
	  this than the heroes of the Second and the Two-and a-Half
	  Internationals. They said to themselves, “These
	  Bolsheviks are stern leaders, but after all they are our own
	  people.” Be that as it may, we created in this way the
	  foundations of a new economic alliance. The peasants gave
	  their produce to the Red Army and received from the latter
	  assistance in protecting their possessions. This is always
	  forgotten by the heroes of the Second International, who,
	  like Otto Bauer, totally fail to understand the actual
	  situation. We confess that the initial form of this alliance
	  was very primitive and that we made very many mistakes. But
	  we were obliged to act as quickly as possible, we had to
	  organise supplies for the army at all costs. During the
	  Civil War we were cut off from all the grain districts of
	  Russia. We were in a terrible position, and it looks like a
	  miracle that the Russian people and the working class were
	  able to endure such suffering, want, and privation,
	  sustained by nothing more than a deep urge for
	  victory. (Animated approval and applause.)

When the Civil War came to an end, however, we faced a
	  different problem. If the country had not been so laid waste
	  after seven years of incessant war, it would, perhaps, have
	  been possible to find an easier transition to the new form
	  of alliance between the proletariat and the peasantry. But
	  bad as conditions in the country were, they were still
	  further aggravated by the crop failure, the fodder shortage,
	  etc. In consequence, the sufferings of the peasants became
	  unbearable. We had to show the broad masses of the peasants
	  immediately that we were prepared to change our policy,
	  without in any way deviating from our revolutionary path, so
	  that they could say, “The Bolsheviks want to improve
	  our intolerable condition immediately, and at all
	  costs.”

And so,our economic policy was changed; the tax in
	  kind superseded the requisitions. This was not invented at
	  one stroke. You will find a number of proposals in the
	  Bolshevik press over a period of months, but no plan that
	  really promised success. But this is not important. The
	  important  thing is that we changed our, economic policy,
	  yielding to exclusively practical considerations, and
	  impelled by necessity. A bad harvest, fodder shortage and
	  lack of fuel—all, of course, have a decisive influence
	  on the economy as a whole, including the peasant economy. If
	  the peasantry goes on strike, we get no firewood; and if we
	  get no firewood, the factories will have to idle. Thus, in
	  the spring of 1921, the economic crisis resulting from the
	  terrible crop failure and the fodder shortage assumed
	  gigantic proportions. All that was the aftermath of the
	  three years of civil war. We had to show the peasantry that
	  we could and would quickly change our policy in order
	  immediately to alleviate their distress. We have always
	  said—and it was also said at the Second
	  Congress—that revolution demands sacrifices. Some
	  comrades in their propaganda argue in the following way: we
	  are prepared to stage a revolution, but it must not be too
	  severe. Unless I am mistaken, this thesis was put forward by
	  Comrade Smeral in his speech at the Congress of the
	  Communist Party of Czechoslovakia.  I read about it in the
	  report published in the ReichenbergVorwärts[18]There is evidently a Leftist
	  wing there; hence this source cannot be regarded as being
	  quite impartial. At all events, I must say that if Smeral
	  did say that, he was wrong. Some comrades who spoke after
	  Smeral at this Congress said, “Yes, we shall go along
	  with Smeral because in this way we shall avoid civil
	  war.” (Laughter.) If these reports are true,
	  I must say that such agitation is neither communistic nor
	  revolutionary. Naturally, every revolution entails enormous
	  sacrifice on the part of the class making it. Revolution
	  differs from ordinary struggle in that ten and even a
	  hundred times more people take part in it. Hence every
	  revolution entails sacrifices not only for individuals, but
	  for a whole class. The dictatorship of the proletariat in
	  Russia has entailed for the ruling class—the
	  proletariat—sacrifices, want and privation
	  unprecedented in history, and the case will, in all
	  probability, be the same in every other country.

The question arises: How are we to distribute this burden of
	  privation? We are the state power. We are able to distribute
	  the burden of privation to a certain extent, and to impose
	  it upon several classes, thereby relatively alleviating the
	  condition of certain strata of the population.

	  But what is to be our principle? Is it to be that of
	  fairness, or of majority? No. We must act in a practical
	  manner. We must distribute the burdens in such a way as to
	  preserve the power of the proletariat. This is our only
	  principle. In the beginning of the revolution the working
	  class was compelled to suffer incredible want. Let me state
	  that from year to year our food policy has been achieving
	  increasing success. And the situation as a whole has
	  undoubtedly improved. But the peasantry in Russia has
	  certainly gained more from the revolution than the working
	  class. There is no doubt about that at all. From the
	  standpoint of theory, this shows, of course, that our
	  revolution was to some degree a bourgeois revolution. When
	  Kautsky used this as an argument against us, we
	  laughed. Naturally, a revolution which does not expropriate
	  the big landed estates, expel the big landowners or divide
	  the land is only a bourgeois revolution and not a socialist
	  one. But we were the only party to carry the bourgeois
	  revolution to its conclusion and to facilitate the struggle
	  for the socialist revolution. The Soviet power and the
	  Soviet system are institutions of the socialist state. We
	  have already established these institutions, but we have not
	  yet solved the problem of economic relations between the
	  peasantry and the proletariat. Much remains to be done, and
	  the outcome of this struggle depends upon whether we solve
	  this problem or not. Thus, the distribution of the burden of
	  privation is one of the most difficult practical
	  problems. On the whole, the condition of the peasants has
	  improved, but dire suffering has fallen to the lot of the
	  working class, precisely because it is exercising its
	  dictatorship.

I have already said that in the spring of 1921 the most
	  appalling want caused by the fodder shortage and the crop
	  failure prevailed among the peasantry, which constitutes the
	  majority of our population. We cannot possibly exist unless
	  we have good relations with the peasant masses. Hence, our
	  task was to render them immediate assistance. The condition
	  of the working class is extremely hard. It is suffering
	  horribly. Those who have more political understanding,
	  however, realise that in the interest of the dictatorship of
	  the working class we must make tremendous efforts to help
	  the peasants at any price. The vanguard of the  working
	  class has realised this, but in that vanguard there are
	  still people who cannot understand it, and who are too weary
	  to understand it. They regarded it as a mistake and began to
	  use the word “opportunism”. They said,
	  “The Bolsheviks are helping the peasants. The
	  peasants, who are exploiting us, are getting everything they
	  please, while the workers are starving.” But is that
	  opportunism? We are helping the peasants because without an
	  alliance with them the political power of the proletariat is
	  impossible, its preservation is inconceivable. It was this
	  consideration of expediency and not that of fair
	  distribution that was decisive for us. We are assisting the
	  peasants because it is absolutely necessary to do so in
	  order that we may retain political power. The supreme
	  principle of the dictatorship is the maintenance of the
	  alliance between the proletariat and the peasantry in order
	  that the proletariat may retain its leading role and its
	  political power.

The only means we found for this was the adoption of the tax
	  in kind, which was the inevitable consequence of the
	  struggle. This year, we shall introduce this tax for the
	  first time. This principle has not yet been tried in
	  practice. From the military alliance we must pass to an
	  economic alliance, and, theoretically, the only basis for
	  the latter is the introduction of the tax in kind. It
	  provides the only theoretical possibility for laying a
	  really solid economic foundation for socialist society. The
	  socialised factory gives the peasant its manufactures and in
	  return the peasant gives his grain. This is the only
	  possible form of existence of socialist society, the only
	  form of socialist development in a country in which the
	  small peasants constitute the majority, or at all events a
	  very considerable minority. The peasants will give one part
	  of their produce in the form of tax and another either in
	  exchange for the manufactures of socialist factories, or
	  through the exchange of commodities.

This brings us to the most difficult problem. It goes
	  without saying that the tax in kind means freedom to
	  trade. After having paid the tax in kind, the peasant will
	  have the right freely to exchange the remainder of his
	  grain. This freedom of exchange implies freedom for
	  capitalism. We say this openly and emphasise it. We do not
	  conceal it in the least. Things would go very hard with us
	  if we  attempted to conceal it. Freedom to trade means
	  freedom for capitalism, but it also means a new form of
	  capitalism. It means that, to a certain extent, we are
	  re-creating capitalism. We are doing this quite openly. It
	  is state capitalism. But state capitalism in a society where
	  power belongs to capital, and state capitalism in a
	  proletarian state, are two different concepts. In a
	  capitalist state, state capitalism means that it is
	  recognised by the state and controlled by it for the benefit
	  of the bourgeoisie, and to the detriment of the
	  proletariat. In the proletarian state, the same thing is
	  done for the benefit of the working class, for the purpose
	  of withstanding the as yet strong bourgeoisie, and of
	  fighting it. It goes without saying that we must grant
	  concessions to the foreign bourgeoisie, to foreign
	  capital. Without the slightest denationalisation, we shall
	  lease mines, forests and oilfields to foreign capitalists,
	  and receive in exchange manufactured goods, machinery, etc.,
	  and thus restore our own industry.

Of course, we did not all agree on the question of state
	  capitalism at once. But we are very pleased to note in this
	  connection that our peasantry has been developing, that it
	  has fully realised the historical significance of the
	  struggle we are waging at the present time. Ordinary
	  peasants from the most remote districts have come to us and
	  said: “What! We have expelled our capitalists, the
	  capitalists who speak Russian, and now foreign capitalists
	  are coming!” Does not this show that our peasants have
	  developed? There is no need to explain to a worker who is
	  versed in economics why this is necessary. We have been so
	  ruined by seven years of war that it will take many years to
	  restore our industry. We must pay for our backwardness and
	  weakness, and for the lessons we are now learning and must
	  learn. Those who want to learn must pay for the tuition. We
	  must explain this to one and all, and if we prove it in
	  practice, the vast masses of the peasants and workers will
	  agree with us, because in this way their condition will be
	  immediately improved, and because it will ensure the
	  possibility of restoring our industry. What compels us to do
	  this? We are not alone in the world.  We exist in a system
	  of capitalist states.[19]. . . On one
	  side, there are the colonial countries, but they cannot help
	  us yet. On the other side, there are the  capitalist
	  countries, but they are our enemies. The result is a certain
	  equilibrium, a very poor one, it is true. Nevertheless, we
	  must reckon with the fact. We must not shut our eyes to it
	  if we want to exist. Either we score an immediate victory
	  over the whole bourgeoisie, or we pay the tribute.

We admit quite openly, and do not conceal the fact, that
	  concessions in the system of state capitalism mean paying
	  tribute to capitalism. But we gain time, and gaining time
	  means gaining everything, particularly in the period of
	  equilibrium, when our foreign comrades are preparing
	  thoroughly for their revolution. The more thorough their
	  preparations, the more certain will the victory
	  be. Meanwhile, however, we shall have to pay the
	  tribute.

A few words about our food policy. Undoubtedly, it was a bad
	  and primitive policy. But we can also point to some
	  achievements. In this connection I must once again emphasise
	  that the only possible economic foundation of socialism is
	  large-scale machine industry. Whoever forgets this is no
	  Communist. We must analyse this problem concretely. We
	  cannot present problems in the way the theoreticians of the
	  old school of socialism do. We must present them in a
	  practical manner. What is modern large-scale industry? It is
	  the electrification of the whole of Russia. Sweden, Germany
	  and America have almost achieved this, although they are
	  still bourgeois. A Swedish comrade told me that in Sweden a
	  large part of industry and thirty per cent of agriculture
	  are electrified. In Germany and America, which are even more
	  developed capitalistically, we see the same thing on a
	  larger scale. Large-scale machine industry is nothing more
	  nor less than the electrification of the whole country. We
	  have already appointed a special commission consisting of
	  the country’s best economists and engineers. It is
	  true that nearly all of them are hostile to the Soviet
	  power. All these specialists will come over to communism,
	  but not our way, not by way of twenty years of underground
	  work, during which we unceasingly studied and repeated over
	  and over again the ABC of communism.

Nearly all the Soviet government bodies were in favour of
	  inviting the specialists. The expert engineers will come to
	  us when we give them practical proof that this will
	  increase the country’s productive forces. It is not
	  enough to prove it to them in theory; we must prove it to
	  them in practice, and we shall win these people over to our
	  side if we present the problem differently, not from the
	  standpoint of the theoretical propaganda of communism. We
	  say: large-scale industry is the only means of saving the
	  peasantry from want and starvation. Everyone agrees with
	  this. But how can it be done? The restoration of industry on
	  the old basis will entail too much labour and time. We must
	  give industry a more modern form, i.e., we must adopt
	  electrification. This will take much less time. We have
	  already drawn up the plans for electrification. More than
	  two hundred specialists—almost to a man opposed to the
	  Soviet power—worked on it with keen interest, although
	  they are not Communists. From the standpoint of technical
	  science, however, they had to admit that this was the only
	  correct way. Of course, we have a long way to go before the
	  plan is achieved. The cautious specialists say that the
	  first series of works will take at least ten
	  years. Professor Ballod has estimated that it would take
	  three to four years to electrify Germany. But for us even
	  ten years is not enough. In my theses I quote actual figures
	  to show you how little we have been able to do in this
	  sphere up to now. The figures I quote are so modest that it
	  immediately becomes clear that they are more of propaganda
	  than scientific value. But we must begin with
	  propaganda. The Russian peasants who fought in the world war
	  and lived in Germany for several years learned how modern
	  farming should be carried on in order to conquer famine. We
	  must carry on extensive propaganda in this direction. Taken
	  by themselves, these plans are not yet of great practical
	  value, but their propaganda value is very great.

The peasants realise that something new must be
	  created. They realise that this cannot be done by everybody
	  working separately, but by the state working as a whole. The
	  peasants who were prisoners of war in Germany found out what
	  real cultural life is based on. Twelve thousand kilowatts is
	  a very modest beginning. This may sound funny to the
	  foreigner who is familiar with electrification in America,
	  Germany or Sweden. But he laughs best who laughs last. It
	  is, indeed, a modest beginning. But the peasants are
	  beginning to understand that new work must be carried out on
	  a grand scale, and that this work has already
	  begun. Enormous difficulties will have to be overcome. We
	  shall try to establish relations with the capitalist
	  countries. We must not regret having to give the capitalists
	  several hundred million kilogrammes of oil on condition that
	  they help us to electrify our country.

And now, in conclusion, a few words about“pure
	  democracy”. I will read you a passage from
	  Engels’s letter to Bebel of December 11, 1884. He
	  wrote:

“Pure democracy . . . when the moment of revolution
	  comes, acquires a temporary importance as the extreme
	  bourgeois party, as which it already played itself off in
	  Frankfort, and as the final sheet-anchor of the whole
	  bourgeois and even feudal economy. . . . Thus between March
	  and September 1848 the whole feudal-bureaucratic mass
	  strengthened the liberals in order to hold down the
	  revolutionary masses. . . . In any case our sole adversary
	  on the day of the crisis and on the day after the crisis
	  will be thewhole of the reaction which will group
	  around pure democracy, and this, I think, should not be
	  lost sight of.”

Our approach must differ from that of the theoreticians. The
	  whole reactionary mass, not only bourgeois, but also feudal,
	  groups itself around “pure democracy”. The
	  German comrades know better than anyone else what
	  “pure democracy” means, for Kautsky and the
	  other leaders of the Second and the Two-and-a-Half
	  Internationals are defending this “pure
	  democracy” from the wicked Bolsheviks. If we judge the
	  Russian Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, not by
	  what they say, but by what they do, we shall find that they
	  are nothing but representatives of petty bourgeois
	  “pure democracy”. In the course of our
	  revolution they have given us a classic example of what
	  “pure democracy” means, and again during the
	  recent crisis, in the days of the Kronstadt mutiny. There
	  was serious unrest among the peasantry, and discontent was
	  also rife among the workers. They were weary and
	  exhausted. After all, there is a limit to human
	  endurance. They had starved for three years, but you cannot
	  go on starving for four or five years. Naturally, hunger has
	  a tremendous influence on political activity. How did the
	  Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks  behave? They
	  wavered all the time, thereby strengthening the
	  bourgeoisie. The organisation of all the Russian parties
	  abroad has revealed the present state of affairs. The
	  shrewdest of the leaders of the Russian big bourgeoisie said
	  to themselves: “We cannot achieve victory in Russia
	  immediately. Hence our slogan must be: ‘Soviets
	  without the Bolsheviks.’” Milyukov, the leader
	  of the Constitutional-Democrats, defended the Soviet power
	  from the attacks of the Socialist-Revolutionaries. This
	  sounds very strange; but such are the practical dialectics
	  which we, in our revolution, have been studying in a
	  peculiar way, from the practical experience of our struggle
	  and of the struggle of our enemies. The
	  Constitutional-Democrats defend “Soviets without the
	  Bolsheviks” because they understand the position very
	  well and hope that a section of the people will rise to the
	  bait. That is what the clever Constitutional-Democrats
	  say. Not all the Constitutional-Democrats are clever, of
	  course, but some of them are, and these have learned
	  something from the French Revolution. The present slogan is
	  to fight the Bolsheviks, whatever the price, come what
	  may. The whole of the bourgeoisie is now helping the
	  Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries, who are now the
	  vanguard of all reaction. In the spring we had a taste of
	  the fruits  of this counter-revolutionary co-operation.[20]

That is why we must continue our relentless struggle against
	  these elements. Dictatorship is a state of intense war. That
	  is just the state we are in. There is no military invasion
	  at present; but we are isolated. On the other hand, however,
	  we are not entirely isolated, since the whole international
	  bourgeoisie is incapable of waging open war against us just
	  now, because the whole working class, even though the
	  majority is not yet communist, is sufficiently
	  class-conscious to prevent intervention. The bourgeoisie is
	  compelled to reckon with the temper of the masses even
	  though they have not yet entirely sided with communism. That
	  is why the bourgeoisie cannot now start an offensive against
	  us, although one is never ruled out. Until the final issue
	  is decided, this awful state of war will continue. And we
	  say: “A la guerre comme à la guerre;
	  we do not promise any freedom, or any democracy.” We
	  tell the peasants quite openly that they must choose between
	  the rule of the  bourgeoisie, and the rule of the
	  Bolsheviks—in which case we shall make every possible
	  concession within the limits of retaining power, and later
	  we shall lead them to socialism. Everything else is
	  deception and pure demagogy. Ruthless war must be declared
	  against this deception and demagogy. Our point of view is:
	  for the time being—big concessions and the greatest
	  caution, precisely because a certain equilibrium has set in,
	  precisely because we are weaker than our combined enemies,
	  and because our economic basis is too weak and we need a
	  stronger one.

That, comrades, is what I wanted to tell you about our
	  tactics, the tactics of the Russian Communist
	  Party. (Prolonged applause.)

[1]The Third
	  Congress was held in Moscow from June 22 to July 12,
	  1921. Its 605 delegates (291 with voice and vote, and 314
	  with voice only) represented 103 organisations from 52
	  countries, namely: 48 Communist Parties, 8 Socialist
	  Parties, 28 Youth Leagues, 4 syndicalist organisations, 2
	  opposition Communist Parties (the Communist Workers’
	  Party of Gemany and the Workers’ Communist Party of
	  Spain) and 13 other organisations. The 72 delegates from the
	  Russian Communist Party of Bolsheviks were headed by
	  Lenin.

The Congress discussed the world economic crisis and the new
	  tasks of the Communist International; the report on the
	  activity of the Executive Committee of the Communist
	  International; the Communist Workers’ Party of
	  Germany, the Italian question; the tactics of the Communist
	  International the attitude of the Red International Council
	  of Trade Unions to the Communist International; the struggle
	  against the Amsterdam International; the tactics of the
	  R.C.P.(B.); the Communist International and the Communist
	  youth movement; the women’s movement; the United
	  Communist Party of Germany, etc.

Lenin directed preparations for and the activities of the
	  Congress; he was elected its Honorary Chairman; he took part
	  in drafting all the key resolutions; he gave a report on the
	  tactics of the R.C.P.(B.); he spoke in defence of the
	  Communist International’s tactics, on the Italian
	  question; in the commissions and at the enlarged sittings of
	  the Executive Committee of the Comintern, and at the
	  delegates’ meetings. Before and during the Congress,
	  Lenin met and talked with delegates about the state of
	  affairs in the Communist Parties.

The Third Congress had a great influence on the formation
	  and development of young Communist Parties. It paid great
	  attention to the Comintern’s organisation and tactics
	  in the new conditions of the world communist movement. Lenin
	  had to combat the Centrist deviation and
	  “Leftist” dogmatism, pseudo-revolutionary
	  “Leftist” cant and sectarianism. As a result,
	  revolutionary Marxism prevailed over the
	  “Leftist” danger.

In the history of the world communist movement the Third
	  Congress is known for the following achievements: it worked
	  out the basic tactics of the Communist Parties; it defined
	  the task of winning the masses over to the side of the
	  proletariat, strengthening working-class unity and
	  implementing united front tactics. The most important aspect
	  of its resolutions, Lenin said, was “more careful,
	  more thorough preparation for fresh and more decisive
	  battles, both defensive and offensive”.

[2]On April 13,
	  1919, in Amritsar, an industrial centre in Punjab, India,
	  British troops fired on a mass meeting of working people who
	  were protesting against the colonialist reign of
	  terror. About 1,000 were killed and 2,000 wounded. The
	  massacre led to popular uprisings in Punjab and other
	  provinces, which were ruthlessly suppressed by the British
	  colonialists.

[3]Posledniye
	  Novosti(The Latest News)—an
	  émigré daily, the organ of the
	  counter-revolutionary party of Constitutional-Democrats,
	  published in Paris from April 1920 to July 1940. Its editor
	  was P. N. Milyukov.

[4]Kommunistichesky Trud(Communist Labour)—a daily published by the Moscow R.C.P.(B.)
	  Committee and the Moscow Soviet of Workers’ and
	  Peasants’ Deputies from March 18, 1920. On February 7,
	  1922, it took the name ofRabochaya Moskva(Workers’ Moscow); on March 1, 1939,Moskovsky Bolshevik(Moscow Bolshevik),
	  and ever since February 19, 1950, has been appearing asMoskovskaya Pravda(Moscow Truth).

[5]La
	  Stampa(Press)—an Italian bourgeois
	  newspaper published in Turin since 1867.

[6]Corriere
	  della Sera(Evening Courier)—an
	  innuential Italian bourgeois newspaper published in Milan
	  since 1876.

[7]The conference
	  of the reformist wing of the Italian Socialist Party, the
	  so-called “socialist concentration” group, took
	  place in Reggio Emilia on October 10-11, 1920. Lenin gave a
	  detailed characteristic of it in his article, “On the
	  Struggle Within the Italian Socialist Party”
	  (Collected Works, Vol. 31, pp. 377-96).

The report on the conference mentioned by Lenin was
	  published inCorriere della Sera No. 244 and
	  No. 245, of October 11 and 12, 1920, as well as inAvanti!No. 245 of October 13, 1920.

[8]Avanti!(Forward!)—a daily, the
	  Central Organ of the Italian Socialist Party, founded in
	  Rome in December 1896. During the First World War, it took
	  an inconsistently internationalist stand, and did not break
	  with the reformists. In 1926, the paper was closed down by
	  Mussolini’s fascist government, but continued to
	  appear abroad. It resumed publication in Italy in 1943.

[9]Lenin
	  apparently refers to the conference of the
	  “unitary” group (Serrati, Baratono and others)
	  in Florence on November 20-21, 1920 which came out against
	  the break with the reformists and, with this reservation,
	  for the acceptance of the 21 conditions of affiliation to
	  the Communist International.

[10]In January
	  1919, the Ebert-Scheidemann government dismissed the Berlin
	  police chief, Eichhorn (a Left-wing Independent) who was
	  very popular with the workers. This sparked off a
	  workers’ protest demonstration on January 4, the day
	  following Eichhorn’s retirement, and later a general
	  strike and an armed uprising to overthrow the
	  Ebert-Scheidemann government. The Revolutionary Committee of
	  Action which headed the uprising included some Independents
	  and Karl Liebknecht and Wilhelm Pieck of the Communist Party
	  of Germany. The Communist Party considered the uprising
	  premature, but decided to support the revolutionary mass
	  movement in every way. Berlin events fired the
	  proletariat’s revolutionary struggle in the Rheinland,
	  the Ruhr, Bremen and elsewhere.

Alarmed by the scope of the movement, the Central Committee
	  of the Independent Social-Democratic Party of Germany
	  started negotiations with the government, who used them for
	  preparing a counter-revolutionary offensive. On January 11,
	  its forces, led by Noske, attacked the workers and drowned
	  their uprising in blood. Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg,
	  the leaders of the German working class, were arrested and
	  killed at the height of the counter-revolutionary reign of
	  terror. Workers’ action in other parts of the country
	  was fiereely suppressed.

[11]In September
	  1920, Italian steelworkers occupied their mills on the
	  initiative of their trade union, which was in conflict with
	  the association of industrialists. The movement started in
	  Turin and Milan, then spread through Piedmont and Northern
	  Italy across the eountry, from the metallurgical industry to
	  other industries and to agriculture. In Sicily and in other
	  areas peasants occupied the land. The scope of the movement
	  jeopardised the capitalist regime, but the reformist leaders
	  of the Socialist Party and the trade unions, terrified by
	  the political character of the movement, adopted a decision
	  to confine it to within the trade unions and prevent it from
	  developing into a revolution. They also decided to start
	  negotiations with the industrialists.

This was a hard blow at the Italian workers’ movement
	  and showed the leaders’ inability to lead the mass
	  forces. Fascism used the confusion within the working class
	  to start its armed offensive in Italy.

[12]The
	  amendments were proposed by the German, Austrian and Italian
	  delegations to the draft theses on tactics, motioned by the
	  Russian delegation at the Third Congress of the Comintern.
	  They were published in German inMoskau, the organ
	  of the Third Congress.

[13]The Open
	  Letter (Offenor Brief) of the Central Committee of the
	  United Communist Party of Germany to the Socialist Party of
	  Germany, Independent Social-Democratic Party of Germany, the
	  Communist Workers’ Party of Germany and all trade
	  unions, was published inDie Rote Fahne(The
	  Red Banner) on January 8, 1921. The U.C.P.G. called on
	  all workers, trade unions and socialist organisations to
	  unite their forces in combating reaction and the
	  capitalists’ offensive against the working
	  people’s vital rights. Their programme of joint action
	  included demands for higher pensions for disabled war
	  veterans; elimination of unemployment; improvement of the
	  country’s finances at the expense of the monopolies,
	  introduction of factory and plant committee control over all
	  stocks of food, raw materials and fuel restarting of all
	  closed enterprises; control over sowing, harvesting and
	  marketing of farm produce by the Peasants’ Councils
	  together with the agricultural labourers’
	  organisations; immediate disarming and dissolution of all
	  bourgeois militarised organisations; establishment of
	  workers’ self-defence; amnesty of all political
	  prisoners; immediate re-establishment of trade and
	  diplomatic relations with Soviet Russia. Lenin said these
	  tactics were“quite correct”(seeLenin Miscellany XXXVI, p. 221).

The Right-wing leaders of the organisations to whom the Open
	  Letter was addressed rejected the proposal for joint action
	  with the Communists, despite the fact that the workers came
	  out for a united front of the proletariat.

[14]Thetheory of an offensive struggleor “theory of
	  the offensive” was proclaimed at the Unity Congress of
	  the Communist Party of Germany and the Left-wing Independent
	  Social-Democratic Party of Germany in December 1920. It
	  envisaged that the party should conduct offensive tactics,
	  regardless of whether there were any objective conditions
	  for revolutionary activity or whether the working people
	  supported the Communist Party. The theory found its
	  followers among the “Leftists” in Hungary,
	  Czechoslovakia, Italy, Austria, and France, and was one of
	  the causes of the defeat of the March 1921 uprising in
	  Germany. But the “Left ists” tried to justify
	  the mistakes of the Central Committee of the U.C.P.G. The
	  theses on the March uprising adopted by the U.C.P.G. Central
	  Committee on April 8, 1921, reiterated that the U.C.P.G. was
	  always to “follow the line of revolutionary
	  offensive” and that offensive tactics, “even
	  when unsuccessful, were a prerequisite of future victory and
	  the only means for a revolutionary party to win over the
	  masses”. At the Third Congress of the Comintern the
	  followers of this theory fought to make it the basis of the
	  Communist International’s resolutions on
	  tactics. Lenin proved this theory to be wrong and
	  adventurous, and the Congress approved his line of patient
	  preparation and winning over of the majority of the working
	  class to the side of the communist movement.

[15]SeeNote  on the British miners’
	  strikein April-June 1921.

[Note 97: The miners’ strike in Britain

[16]The reference is to the resolution of the Third Congress of
	  the Communist International, “The International
	  Situation and Our Tasks”. SeeKommunistichesky
	  Internatsional v dokumentakh. Resheniya,tezisy i
	  vozzvaniya kongressov Kominterna i plenumov
	  IKKI. 1919-1932(The Communist International in
	  Documents. Resolutions, Theses and Appeals of Congresses of
	  the Comintern and Plenary Meetings of the Executive
	  Committee of the Communist International. 1919-1932, Moscow,
	  1933, pp. 165-80).

[17]On May 26,
	  1921, in Vladivostok, the whiteguards, supported by the
	  Japanese interventionists, overthrew the Maritime Regional
	  Administration of the Far Eastern Republic and established a
	  regime of bourgeois dictatorship and terror headed by
	  industrialists, the Merkulov brothers. South Primorye became
	  a spring-board for continued imperialist intervention in the
	  Far East.

The Revolutionary People’s Army of the Far Eastern
	  Republic, under V. K. Blyukher, and later I. P. Uborevich,
	  defeated the whiteguards, liberating Khabarovsk on February
	  14, 1922, and Vladivostok on October 25, 1922. Japan had to
	  withdraw her forces from the Far East. On November 14, 1922,
	  the People’s Assembly of the Far Eastern Republic set
	  up the Far East Revolutionary Committee with plenipotentiary
	  powers to implement the union of the Far East with Soviet
	  Russia. On November 15, 1922, the Presidium of the
	  All-Russia Central Executive Committee issued a decree
	  proclaiming the Far Eastern Republic an inseparable part of
	  the R.S.F.S.R.

[18]The
	  Csechoslovak Social-Democratic Party (Left) Congress held in
	  Prague from May 14 to 16, 1921, was the Inaugural Congress
	  of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia. It was attended by
	  569 delegates representing more than 350,000 Party
	  members. The Congress adopted a resolution by acclamation on
	  affiliation to the Third International. B. Smeral was the
	  chiefrapporteurat the Congress.

Lenin made a thorough study of the material of the Congress
	  (seeLenin Miscellany XXXVI, pp. 288, 289,
	  311).

Vorwärts(Forward)—a newspaper
	  published by the Austrian Left-wing Social-Democrats from
	  May 1911 in Reichenberg. In 1921, it became the organ of the
	  Czechoslovak Communist Party (German group).

[19]The verbatim
	  report then goes on to say (Lenin spoke in German)“als Glied der Weltwirtschafw”; the
	  French translation was“comme membre de
	  l’économie mondiale”, and the English,
	  “as a member of the world’s economy”. The
	  text in this volume is taken fromPravda, July 9,
	  1921, which did not contain these words.

[20]SeeNote the 10th Party
	  Congresson the counter-revolutionary Kronstadt mutiny
	  in March 1921.